Yup. Same way professional sports does it. Women can join the NBA if they want so long as they perform in the combine and can compete at the level of the men.
It's far more complicated. Can a female, even if she were to make it through selection, be able to sustain? Does this increase lethality and overall effectiveness? According to the most comprehensive study conducted by the Marines, the answer is no on all accounts.
As a former army drill instructor I noticed some key differences between the men and women coming into the system beyond the differing physicality. The men tended to be younger (18-19) and were more interested in getting to shoot their weapons and slept through lectures and the women were 3 years older and more cerebral, took notes and consequently did better on the written tests. Since a lot of a passing score was based on written tests they appeared to be equally qualified. Men were quicker to form effective teams and specialize on tasks such as barracks maintenance. Men had no problem with the idea of a battle buddy who would have your back even if you hated each other's guts most of the time. The women had difficulty with the concept of teams and tended to try to form clicks with friends in other squads or platoons and ignore their assigned buddy. With the guys by the second week the barracks were looking perfect most of the time. The women's barracks looked substandard most of the time and even in the last week they'd be arguing about whose turn it was to perform a particular task. On another note when my daughter-in law was deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd we sent a Care Package so they could prepare a meal that wasn't typical. She sent us a picture of her section eating the meal and I noticed that her squad was entirely women and the other squad was all men. When I inquired why the difference she told me that the women stayed inside the fire base and the men performed missions outside the wire. Not sure how widespread this practice was, but it certainly was not equitable.
Your first segment is interesting to hear the difference in how they interact. I'd always imagined women would be better at teams but apparently not. And it's ironic and funny that they don't keep the barracks clean.
I had a female drill instructor tell me the EXACT same thing about women's inability to bond, form a team, admit another woman is better at something than she is and ask for help, etc., compared to the men. She actually told me she hated having female flights. (AF TI)
I can imagine that the men who go outside the wire feel more comfortable with another man watching their back than a woman. I have no military experience, but I am 62 years old and have been married for close to 40 years, with two grown daughters. Nothing you tell me about women is surprising at all. Men and women have entirely different evolutionary histories, so it should not surprise us that we think differently. Men have had to deal with armed combat for hundreds of thousands of years, women have not. We should expect men to have, generally speaking, the mental wherewithal to deal with combat and forming teams necessary to that task in ways that women find difficult.
@@maluminse1 Women are more concerned about who's turn it is than keeping the place clean. Guys will just keep the place clean, and if they think someone is shirking, that person will get punished by the others in some imaginative way...and if the punished man tells the drill instructor, the punishment will be even worse [by his team].
Absolutist positions are rarely sensible when you think about it. Just as an example, if you can lower the standard by 10% but double recruitment, that's probably the better move. The US military is struggling BADLY with recruitment. You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.
Lol the standards are always reduced because a warm body is better than no body. If you ask soldiers from previous generations, it was a lot harder in the past than now training wise solely because men got weaker and they need positions filled.
Amen, Standards should be raised. Every truck driver, clerk , mechanic should be able to to jump into the roll of Infantry, War isn't fair it may decide that for us..
i didn’t know who she was until today. apparently she’s on a terror watchlist for her deals with Asaad and Putin. also she gives me trans vibes…i’m not sure she’s a woman.
As a retired Special Forces Soldier I believe the FIRST THING that has to change is get rid of seperate Male and Female physical fitness standards! The enemy will not discriminate. Anyone who thinks a 120-140lb woman will be able to defeat a 210-230lb man is mistaken. How is that woman going to carry a 220lb man out of the kill zone? Why is there no women in the NFL? Women can not do everything a man can do the same as a man can't do everything a woman can, they can complement each others strengths and minimize their limitations. America must employ and use women better than just allowing them in every MOS. Yes, I believe women can be effective in SOME Special Forces missions but NOT on a 12 man Operational Detachment Alpha.
Well put.....women and men are not "equal"; they are "complimentary" by nature (yin / yang). Having exclusionary requirements for combat positions is simple common sense...which is what we need to get back to in this country.
It’s just part of the psyop dude Nobody with a brain in their head thinks women can contend with men Why yall are so easily manipulated is the real question
As a retired Firefighter ive been able to work with many brilliant women. Their roles were primarily in EMS which is where they excel. When entering a burning building on a search and rescue mission you have to be confident that your partner has the ability to drag your sorry butt out of the building. This is for the safety of all concerned. Everyone goes through to same physical agility testing. You must meet all the criteria!
@@johnwesner3935 reality. The young generally can do it.the older,30+ getting soft and out of shape. Getting those pouches. If the woman is there she will drag your sorry ass out too. It may be harder,but she will not let you die or die trying to do it. Men think women do not have courage,do not have the same love of country,the same feeling to defend and keep what we have,the same love of people,Adrenalin that kicks in in emergency or when in danger. Well they do. They have the same love of life and survival. Biggest issue there is culture of a man will be there to save and protect. In fact they are not. You are alone and need to defend yourself,by yourself. The reason it generally ends up badly is girls are not taught how to defend and take care of themselves and be prepared for a predator.
As an AF officer (40 years ago) I attended army parachute training. There were minimally acceptable standards for sit-ups, chin-ups and squats. Women were just being introduced. The standards were reduced. That is the truth. Every other position in the military should be open but NOT COMBAT.
As a man, I would not take all the dangerous, nasty jobs so females could have all the good jobs. Screw that, let women do all the jobs in the military.
Also a female soldier can be raped quicker than a male GI. Of course a male GI can of course be raped by a man, but in the middle East or other Muslim countries a man wouldn't be raped by a man
I am a disabled VietNam veteran. There are probably five people in support of each combat troop. Women can fill these rolls. They don't have to be in combat to be effective.
I DON'T WAN'T TO CONTRODICT YOU SIR. ALL MY RESPECT TO YOU! BUT IN LIFE SURPRISING NECESSITIES MAKES US PEOPLE TO BE ABLE DOING THINGS, EVEN WE SURPRISE OURSELVES?? DID I DO YTHA - AT BASAS! #2 - I AGREE WITH YOU, UP TPO A POINT SIR, BUT HEY, THE OPPONENT / ENEMY SU - URE WILL BE SURPRISED? WHENA WOMAN WILL TRAKE CARE OF, SEVERAL TOUGHYS??! I'M SUR YOU DO KNOW, WHAT I MEAN??!!!
@@desbell7431lot of jobs in the military don’t have high physical fitness requirements. Checkout a navy ship sometime(not navy seals, just regular sailors). Women can do plenty of jobs just fine. Yeah, most women can be a navy seal but neither can most men. You can find jobs where 50% men can do it but less than 50% women can do it but so what. Just do everything merit based. Don’t worry about gender. Have early screenings so people can be filtered into jobs that contribute the most to society.
We should not send our military into harms way. I am more concerned that ALL people should defend their family and homes ie have access and know how to use guns.
THIS was a prime concern, and was trained during our MOB on the way to Iraq in 2009. Combat Aviation, Attack Recon Apache chopper battalions. No 130lb woman wearing 70 lbs of armor and still more in weapons and ammo, in 120 degree F heat is going to drag a 240 lb, 6 foot 4 inch man dressed the same way anywhere. Period. She will simply become a second casualty thereby endangering further troops and the mission.
@@randybisbee848 Me, being a 150 lb, 5 foot 6 inch man would be hard pressed to carry that man anywhere. And I wouldn't be able to drag him far. You might want to consider keeping each unit to similar sized humans.
Matthew 5:37 - "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." It was not a direct answer but a careful choice of words alluding to the obvious. I would have more respect if they would just say "no, women do not meet the standard for combat positions." But it goes beyond qualification as well. Combat is not suited for the nurturing nature of women, and nor should women be exposed to the violent carnage of battle let alone participating in it, in a civil society. Brilliant semantics, not a firm stance.
When you listening her every time bragging on how she served in the military you would think she was a female Rambo while in reality she was an admin in a medical unit. Of course now that she scored a job flipping on all of her position she can pander to the electorate that she's been sucking up in the past year or so
Too careful, if you are too careful in Jordan's own words you'll never progress through the thought process, you need to be able to make mistakes in language if you are to work through anything conceptual
I think she did answer it...if the person has the skill and capability, have been tested and demonstrated they have the ability to do the job, and are the best equipped to do the job, then they should be placed there. That standard, by it's very realism, will absolutely rule out a majority of women and a percentage of men.
I have an issue with that answer, which was fairly rational in itself. How do we prevent people from down the line softening the standard? That's pretty much how we got where we are today. We had standards for police officers, firemen, soldiers, etc, and they all got softened over time. First to include crappier men that just get by, to eventually women. Then you get the people who purposely soften the standard to gain political points. As it is, 99.99%(if not 100) of women are useless for combat, the number is high enough that we benefit more from discarding the option altogether than to allow the possibility of a 0.01% exceptional lady to make it in, because leaving that door open guarantees the softening of the standard isn't far away, for all the wrong reasons mentioned above.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u I get your concern, but at the end of the day, saying "you need to be male" is ALSO a standard, and can be changed by people down the line as well. The answer to this kind of questions, IMHO, is: we need to recover the principle of teleology. Things exists FOR SOMETHING. Armed Forces exist to WIN WARS. Anything that makes them better AT THAT should be the standard. The same applies to sex (it exists to propagate the species), and the same applies to everything else in life. What furthers their natural objective (teleology) is good, what hinders it is bad.
Introducing a capable woman into an all man unit brings other complexities and problems besides ability. To let that one woman in you must alter multiple things for thousands of men to attempt to maintain the same efficiency and cohesiveness. She has to train, eat, sleep, shower, and change with men - not just on the job in combat, but in the training pipeline and when she is back home. Nobody is going to ever let hormones play a role, including her monthly fluctuation? Nobody is ever going to overextend risk to treat her differently? She's going to average the same career length as a man and never get pregnant, or always be the same strength after pregnancy? Absolutely not. Not worth it, especially in such a high risk environment.
I served in a field unit from1980-88 when they were just starting to let women go into the field. I found that unless you had a group of women that could be self sustaining, I would get pulled away from my job/jobs to set up tents, dig latrines, slit trenches for the women PLUS I had to fulfill my own jobs as well. So they got to sit back and smoke and I got double the work, not a fan of that.
I had the same experience during my time in the Army from 88-96. We had 4 women in my boat unit (LCM-8) that if we had one of them on the boat crew (typically 4-5), that female had gender "seniority" to the one and only quiet and dry on the boat while off shift. That meaning, the other male crew members off shift would spend their downtime out in the weather. When we were off the boat and doing FTXs, the male soldiers would have to carry a portion of the females standard kit weight. We would have to dig their latrines, set up their tents in a female only area, and then post guard on their tent site. Every year, we all had to re-qualify for our PT tests and the female's expected passing number per event was always lower than the male counterparts were. Lastly, the female's monthly cycle would allow them to go on "light" duty. Long story short, women in the field with men were a hinderence (slowed down) the mission. There are plenty of military occupations out there that are better suited for female members. I didn't read a study to learn this, my experienced years in uniform taught me and my fellow male soldiers this same story.
The PRT tests (physical readiness tests) in the military have lower standards for women. Women aren't required to do as many push ups, sit ups, and the times for running are longer for women. The physical standards for women are rock bottom in the military.
I really like her. She always takes care to phrase her answer perfectly, is really smart and keeps her cool. She should have a brilliant career in front of her.
@@ryleighloughty3307 she did answer it though. She said yes if they can pass the standards. But the standards have to reflect the reality of the job, and shouldn't be too hard or too easy. Try using your ears and the thing in between them
38 years as a soldier, sailor and professional firefighter, I have seen some things. I have seen women who couldn't rack a round into the M2 even though they were the gunner. I have seen the fire department lower physical standards so women could pass, lowering most of the upper body strength tasks and I have seen hanky panky on Navy ships because 20 somethings couldn't wait until the next port visit. It's a mess.
My concern with women in the military, especially combat, is they are a distraction. sorry to others that will complain about it but it's reality when you have a team full of men they all get in order and know what their job is to do and they fulfill it even when the ones that don't do the job they are taken care of one way or another. you can't do that to a woman like you can to a man it's just ain't going to happen. Men know they have a responsibility to defend and protect women, and if you put them in harm's way, that's where the distraction comes in.
I've said this so many times. Much to the consternation of people in our modern culture. Honorable men will absolutely treat a woman differently than they will a man. It is innate and will probably never change. Add to that the specific hygiene needs of a woman and the sexual tension, and it's not a recipe for success. It may be workable, but it's not optimal. Optimal should be the goal. This ain't a social club we're talking about. It's life or death.
I served in an Army MEDEVAC unit when one of the first women was assigned as a flight medic. The first woman, after completing the qualification requirements to be a flight medic, had an emotional breakdown during her very first real life mission. The second woman assigned performed spectacularly! I believe that this dynamic also exists for males as well. Not everyone can do every job.
Great assessment. I deployed to Balad as basically a server administrator. I left the base within the last 3 weeks of US presence on the base and it was starting to get hairy with rocket and mortar attacks increasing. There were some of my fellow male comms teammates that requested to leave early because they were struggling to maintain their wits with the increased risk. Yet there were females that stayed and worked right along side me closing down the bases data center until the very end. Each person is different.
A flight medic doesn't run up and down hills you literally fly to where ya gotta go under the security of other attack helicopters or ISR and ground units for protection.
As a flight medic how many times did ya knock down doors? Lmfao 😂 but yes us combat killers would and do love seeing a pretty face right before we die. I thank you for your stellar service 🙏
Probably not many remember during the early push towards Baghdad two female soldiers got separated from their unit. Both tortured and assaulted, one soldier died the other survived but had all her leg & arm bones broken. The Iraqi doctor who sought out an American army unit to save the surviving soldier was given asylum in the U.S. for him and his family for his efforts.
Women as support, but not in combat. The average woman could not pick up a wounded man and carry him in a combat situation. She has never had to do that......but I sill she is a great pick for the job she has been selected for.
You'd be surprised what humans can do when the adrenaline is flowing. There are many reported instances of women lifting cars when a loved one is trapped underneath. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing.
@@Crimsonedge1 It's true that adrenaline helps with physical strength, but those reports are not the same as women bicep curling 1000 pounds; instead, it's usually just a fraction of the weight of the vehicle, which is still impressive, but not the weight of the whole car. Additionally, the muscles which are activated to 100% usage are very likely to be severely damaged, and the "strength boost" does not last nearly long enough for combat situations. Combat is not about a single 5 second window of increased strength and stamina, rather, combat is about continuously increasing requirements for high level of mental, emotional, and physical strength and stamina.
1. Serving is a privilege, not a right; and jobs should be based on need, not opportunities. 2. Not all combat roles are equal. 3. If combat unit commanders can articulate a NEED for women in a certain role, so be it. 4. Thankful for the men and women who have served.
1. if it's a privilege then why do men have to sign draft cards? 2. Clueless comment 3. Another clueless comment 4. Only thankful for those *combat* veterans (people sign up for selfish reasons, duh) These new "right-wing Feminists" have started to infiltrate our movement
Ah, but you're misunderstanding the purpose of the US military. It's not a meritocratic task oriented entity. It's a jobs program. Both directly in that it will hire basically anyone with two feet and a heartbeat. And indirectly through the geographically (and thus politically) widespread defense industry.
I asked my daughter this question about women serving on the front lines. She said she would go if ordered to go. She served four years in the NAVY, although she was an expert marksman she is only 5-2. Women do not belong on the front lines, even if they are capable.
I think she's right; everyone needs to achieve the same standard. Women fought in the Civil War disguised as men and did a good job of it. The problem comes when the standards are changed "to allow more women to take the job," which has been the case in the US military for decades.
It also promotes disharmony when your primary groups measure is being undermined inorder to "promote" numbers, especially when this scoring also affects your chances of promotion.
Two things; First, I have heard from German veterans and read about the women in the Soviet Army who were matched against the German Wermacht. The policy of the Germans was to immediately liquidate female prisoners. And exactly the same for female partisan fighters as well. No time was alotted for sexual assaults. Interrogation was carried out, sometimes, and then a pistol shot to the back of the head. Period. Second, I was infantry in Vietnam. 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division Volunteered to go back twice more. I have never personally served around a woman who could do my job in a rifle company, in battalion Recon platoon or later, in the 1st Brigade LRRP platoon. When the leader says "pick up the gun" the M240 machine gun weighs about 27 pounds and the ammo is seven pounds per hundred rounds. Basic load was five hundred rounds. "You do what you gotta do". That includes putting a 180 pound casualty on a hovering med-evac. If you can't do your part, you shouldn't be there. WAR IS NOT A SOCIAL STATEMENT.
I was glad that Jordan brought up the issue of women as potential POWs. I think whether they choose to face that eventuality men need to say no. We have lost the moral principle of men's responsibility to protect women. When men do not accept that responsibility we are lost as a nation and as a human race.
What about the Kurdish YPJ ? ? ? All women, and they kicked ISIL's ass ! IF, or when, the SHTF, women DO need to be prepared and ABLE to step up, as Russian women did during WW2 ? Absolutely NO lowering of standards, but women HAVE to regain that ability. The women of SOE in WW2 fought JUST as bravely as any "Man"
@@GilbertdeClare0704agreed. What we have is a severe culture issue of women not being treated with the same pressure of responsibility as men. Moreover we have a fitness issue across the country. As a female veteran I hated the segregated PT standards and often did better than some of my male colleagues without trying very hard. It comes down to discipline and your mental toughness. What makes men and women extraordinary is what they are willing to put themselves thru and endure. We need a warrior culture and I believe that would reduce the amount of sexual assaults for both men and women and the idea of personal responsibility that you carry to be a productive citizen would be very healthy and beneficial for society. Everyone needs to carry their weight.
I personally would fight harder knowing I had women in my unit that needed me. I would venture this would be true for many men that feel protective of women. Fighting harder is something that should also be considered. There’s another aspect to the morality question. Is it moral to deny someone the opportunity to do something they want to do just because they were born a female? I hear you on their views of traditional morality concerning women, but it’s not our place to tell them what they can and can’t do as long as they meet the performance standard.
That moral responsibilty is propaganda. Only the women in a man's life that help him deserve that privelege. Everyone else is owed an equal amount of respect and protection that is significantly less than what is owed to your immediate family. A random woman is no more valuable to a man than another man.
@@the1joyster I SO, SO, SO agree with you my friend ! DEFINITELY ! It is so TOTALLY that RETURN of that Warrior Culture that is desperately needed ! I read in a Post war report that the Female Agents of SOE who were captured and tortured, on average, resisted torture BETTER than men, and hardly EVER betrayed their fellow soldiers or civilians helping them. My Ex was better at shooting kneeling, than I was, yet prone or standing, I was better. Driving a Russian T55 or Ferret Scout Car and SHE was the better driver of both. She also got her Hanggliding EP1 and EP2 faster than I did, yet the reverse with Skydiving. I have seen it in my work as a Therapist that schools come down MUCH harder on GIRLS getting aggressive than boys, which TEACHES them to turn it all inwards. LEGITIMISING that healthy assertion/aggression in our culture where all kids LEARN not to fear it but to CONTROL it, and then NO reduction in standard whatsoever, creates the BEST person for the job. It is the TASK that matters, not whether one has a d*ck between one's legs
Former combat soldier here; keep women out infantry, sof, etc. Any trigger pulling ground combat units period. If you can't carry or drag any of your team mates to safety if they get hit, then you are in the wrong place. Secondly, we don't have time for your time of the month in the field and what comes with that. Plenty of other mil jobs out there for women. The women that passed Ranger school is because standards were lowered, and there is documented proof of this.
if a man and women are fighting side by side and the woman gets shot or injured, the man can carry them out oif the line of fire to safety.... A woman COULD NOT pick up a 220lb man and carry them to safety... maybe drag them out of the line of fire, but you would end up with 2 dead soldiers... they are NOT physically capable.. period
I am female and was an Army medic and agree. Job assignments and training and expectations need to be realistic. I would have had to drag a wounded soldier out, no way I could carry one.
My dad was a WW 2 airman in the 8th Air Force, shot down over Germany and captured. 16 months in. POW camp transformed a healthy 170 pound man into a 98 pound skeleton on the verge of death when liberated. He and I had many detailed discussions about his time in captivity and there were many horrors that he was the victim of. He was an extraordinary man who lived with his PTSD the best he could. He was an excellent provider to me and my siblings and set an example of honesty, hard work and patriotism. But one can now see how troubled he was from his wartime experience. I do not believe it is wise to put any woman in this possible environment due to the obvious additional physical risks from potential enemy sexual predators. I beg our military to not put our treasured women, the possible mothers of our people, in this kind of harms way. No way is this a good idea. I guarantee my father would be against the notion of women in front line combat because of this.
Yes and here is a very important issue that most have missed. A woman's first responsibility in society is to keep the population up which is a tough and time consuming role. In all out war in which there would be no civilians a savvy commander would make women the prime target; Ultimately no female soldiers, then no male soldiers, anywhere. The war is over.
My concern is that people think this level of depravity and soulless behavior is something the modern world wouldn't see like "the old days". There are two guarantees in every war since the very first one in human history all the way to the last: 1) War brings out the absolute worst in humanity and 2) The monsters created in war were really not meant to be there and are only there at the behest of the rich and powerful - the true monsters of our world. We think war is a civilized necessity. I only see it as a direct correlation to wealth and power. Your father was an American hero who sacrificed much for this country. I hope he is well in the afterlife, or whatever version of that he believed in.
Women who are in the military chose to be there. No one is forcing Women or men to join. In the case of a war, we need as many people as we can get to fight, man or woman. Use common sense.
He touched on it but they didn't go deeper...The effect on the morale of fighting units severely drops if a woman/women is killed/injured in combat. When another man dies it's sad, but mainly affects the soldier's friends...When a woman dies, it affects everybody. I don't think DEI belongs in the military :(
That's a consideration, but I think it should be the woman's decision whether she wants to place herself in that situation, assuming she can meet the standard. No question, being captured is going to be way worse for a woman than a man. I think the biggest liability is the risk of relationships forming and that immediately changes the order of priority.
@@thadofalltrades No, it's not her decision. If combat effectiveness increases with mixed personnel then fine. The Marines did a study and that wasn't the case. Mixed personnel faired worse in combat scenarios.
@@thadofalltrades Disagree. Women should not be in combat. Women should be in support roles only, well away from the front lines. If a man is down, his fellow male soldiers have the strength to retrieve him. A women soldier does not. She is a liability.
@rlhicks1 that's a different argument though. That goes into standards. That's not what I was addressing. If you set standards and a woman meets them, she should be permitted to participate and it's her choice to do so. If the standard is no women in combat scenarios then the discussion is over.
I have heard that women in combat can be a psychological hindrance for the men due to the protective nature of these men. A woman in danger in combat compared to a man in danger can cause a pause in quick judgment for the safety of the female that can cause far more casualties. Anyone else hear this?
So you're saying that women don't let their emotions cloud their judgment when in combat, but men do. I don't think a man too emotional to do his job should be in the military.
If it's not fair for women to play a game/ sports against a man....then how in the hell is it ok and effective for women to fight in combat against a man??? When it's life or death and not just game where you go back home in a couple hours. Explain that insanity to me. WTF
I’m a vet, I’m also a woman, I don’t believe 99% of the women that I was with would not want to be on the front lines. I don’t think we were physically able to do that job. But, if a woman could pass the same PT scores as men, but not lowered for women scores, then I say yes. But the standards for women are always lower for females..
I agree with TG and if a person meets the standard they should be able to do that job, but DO NOT lower the standard for anyone. It takes a special person to enlist in the military, another kind of special to want to enlist in infantry, and then it gets even more special for any sort of special forces. The standard should weed out the weak, period.
if a woman can pick up and carry a 220lb man out of the line of fire, so be it, but unless it is the late Joanie Laurie (Chyna from WWE) people will die
Women can't do the job, that's why the standard is there. And women can't reach the standard, that's why they were lowered. Women do not deserve to be in combat positions.
Her perspective is quite reasonable but there are additional reasons to select men that simply don't have to be measured when you select only men such as bone density. The reality is that women are simply far more expensive to train and deploy for jobs such as infantry because they spend so much time injured.
Another aspect in a mixed unit the men in the group will always prefer the male specialist in harms way because men are hard wired to protect women and children first. Therefore each group has reduced availability of specialist skills, and the men in the group will expose themselves more and more often.
Along with having the mental and physical requirements for the job, you have to look at the overall effectiveness and casualty rates of mixed sex units vs all male units, and even all female units. Then follow the data. Mothers shouldn't have to grieve their lost children for social engineering.
Obviously all male units will perform the best.. if the women have a lower physical performance standard than the men they end up becoming a hindrance to the team making it a less effective unit as they wont be able to carry their own weight.. in frontline combat at least
The standards by themselves is not enough. Team dynamics and paternalism will always play a part. Men in a high stress environment will act differently towards women.
As a woman and retired firefighter I can attest to the fact that no matter how tough you think you are as a woman, an out of shape man of equal height is much stronger! In my prime I was a power lifter and very athletic. I could out lift, out run, out climb most and keep up with the guys. My muscles were to much for my tendons to handle. My body started to break down. I’m now old and I’ve had 20+ orthopedic surgeries! I’m no feminist I just loved doing the same thing guys enjoyed. Had women been able to sign up for combat duty back in the day I would have been at the front of the line! Being older and wiser now I know women should NOT be allowed to fight on our front lines. Also standards should never be lowered in any way for the military, law enforcement or fire departments along with others!
Stop hating on Nature. Changing enlistment standards due to dangerously low enlistment is different than changing the underlined premise of protection built within our biological coding (DNA). I don't think women shouldn't be allowed to enlist but, the pool of women vs. men meeting physical and mental standards will be much smaller. Standards for combat should be across the board, any variation would directly put lives at risk. @@Kroh13
@@Kroh13 Well, they are, the problem is right now in most physical jobs we have 1 standard for men and a different altogether for women that has much lower requirements, which is ridiculous.
I am a retired Paramedic with 17+ years in EMS. I am retired because the standard for women physically was less than what was required for men. I had to do all of the heavy work. Anything that took physical power or effort was mine to do. I injured both of my shoulders with this female partner. I was the first she took out, and after the third person injured by her inability to perform, she was moved out of the field work. Having a physically capable woman can be helpful, but without that ability to carry the weight of the tasks to be delivered, someone always gets hurt. This stupidity has to stop.
The Israeli military studied women in combat and found that captured female soldiers are significantly more valuable to the enemy. Also, men tend to not follow orders when women are in danger and will do what it takes to protect the women, perhaps endangering themself, others and perhaps the fate of their nation. It has been argued that men should be trained otherwise. What is the cost of training men to disregard their instincts to protect women?
I have to say that it always made me sad and upset at seeing videos of women returning from being deployed who left their babies behind. As a mother, I could never have done that.
I'm glad she says that skills rank out above all else... there are some combat vets who are male who disagree with this but i don't. You got the skills? Then you get the job, as it should be
I served in the RAF and for me it is not how women operate on the front line but what would happen to them if caught my an enemy. Every fibre of my soul wants to protect women from harm. If that makes me a fossil then so be it. From 25 miles north of London, be lucky stay safe.
I did my basic training in a unit when they took in the first ever female recruits. I feel just as you do, the main thing is I and others would be distracted by our feeling of need to protect them. Then on top of that I saw that even though officially no exceptions were made and no standards were lowered, in reality it was almost like having a politician visit the unit with how much effort was done to cater to their special needs. So many units (not all) also have such physical requirements (note: especially when you add in the need of extreme endurance things get even more skewed) that very few women will be able to hold their own. In our unit only a fraction of the females could really handle themselves, and the resources put in for that low return was ridiculous.
I think one thing is forgotten here: The cost to the military per soldier. The military's mission is to protect the nation, not to cater to the self-expression desires of a handful of women. If it's too much of a hassle to upend the whole process just for the handful of women who *_might_* qualify then there should be no imperative to do that. Keep things simple, save money, be effective.
@ Maybe just maybe it is something that is engrained so deep that it goes back to a basic animal instinct. A cock will put itself between a fox and its hens. Not sure how else I can explain it.
I’m sorry, the sexes are not equal. For example, menstruation is not a thing for men, and it can have an effect on capabilities. So yes, by all means select for ability first, but take into consideration that humans not hermaphrodites.
I think that's definitely true in most cases. Of course there are always exceptions though. But we need to hold them to the same level of scrutiny we do with men.
What they failed to discuss is that men in combat along side women are protective over their female counterparts and that took away their focus from being the best combat soldier they could be. Very dangerous.
I like Tulsi, but women should not be in combat, end of story. They can help in many valuable roles, but we do not need to put women in harms way, that's a societal mindset.
Being able or "qualified" is one thing. Being captured, and subsequent treatment as a female prisoner by enemies who do not follow the rules of combat is another entirely. Thank you, doctor, for raising an extremely important point that few have the parts to speak about openly. I agree the soldier may have made the choice to accept that possibility but the rest of her group will be affected heavily by what they imagine is happening to their captured comrade and that may have an affect on their effectiveness.
I worked with one of Jessica's fellow soldiers at APG, MD. We talked about how that went down. That poor soldier went through hell until she was rescued. SGT__ said that what they did with female soldiers was terrifying. Based on conversations with SGT _____, what they did to him was also terrifying. Female soldiers should never be put in that situation regardless if they volunteered knowing it could happen to them. United States Army (SFC/Retired 1985-2007) JM2
Even if some people are not suited for combat roles, there are lots of roles they can contribute in. I think it's more important that military service is voluntary. They don't have to be the best, they just have to be good enough. Plenty of women are good enough, so don't deny them the opportunity if they want it
It's not about "standards" I met the standard But when I was on patrol as a medic in Afghanistan I was shit scared ALL THE TIME That we'd get into the shit and I wouldn't be fast enough...or strong enough...or good enough Standards are for training Just good enough ain't good enough when lives are on the line I'm grateful I never had to pass that test
Why doesn’t anyone talk about the differences between men and women during adrenaline rushes. Average or weak men could perform better under pressure than strong women because men gain lots of strength when adrenaline is pumping.
In combat, it's not a courtessy rumba?? ! It's discipline - quick witt / thinking! And a whole lot of, common sense! HHMMM?WHAT? WHAT?! WHATS? - THAT PATRIOT'S . . OH - O YES, LIKE Lt. Col. GABBARD !!🗽
@@TolgaAtamtuerk If I was in combat with someone who looked like Tulsi next to me, Yes I and many other Men would be distracted...even if it's for a second...that's when someone could get killed
I served with a few badass female soldiers. They were outliers for their sex, but were probably in the lower 50% percentile when it came to physical strength and endurance of their male counterparts. When we hear "combat" most people picture infantry fighting, but that's just one element. Aviation, armor, artillery make more sense to be integrated than more physically demanding branches like Infantry or Engineers.
If I had one wish for Jordan Peterson, it would be that he accept the position of Surgeon General so that he might work on the problem of children's mental health in schools, the mental health of our homeless population, and the mental health of the nation as a whole. This task is monumental, and I can think of no one more capable than Jordan Peterson.
There is a point here that’s not being made about this topic. I don’t think Americans are ready to see a female soldier who may get captured being abused in every way possible by an enemy who thinks that females are inferior to men and are very cruel to their own women. Please address this issue before you go any further on this issue.
In about 1982, in Germany, we had a monthly Status report showing that 4% of my 3rd Infantry Division was pregnant. That 4% was not deployable. Is that anyway to run an army?
I had to pick up the slack from both men,and woman who I worked with in the military because they lacked the physical strength to lift heavy bomb racks, launchers and Pylons. The Navy knows what jobs are physically demanding, and yes there should be physical standards to screen people out of those jobs to make it fair for the people who have to do extra work. Equality does not work when heavy shit has to be lifted.
Let's settle this once and for all for combat positions. Can you fireman carry by yourself a 200-pound wounded comrade 50 yards? If you can't, you are not qualified!
In my neighbourhood recently there was a wood chopping carnival, women were competing against the men. The stark contrast between women and men in the competition was very, very evident. The women were struggling to cut through the first half of the log when the men had finished cutting right through their logs, not only that they had to rest in between chopping strokes on their second half of the logs. A bloke in his seventies was competing against the women and he still finished way ahead of them. The ladies were all in their twenties and large but they didn’t have the physical stamina and strength as the men
Chopping wood for a one time carnival is very different than training for combat. Women and men who are in the military train for it, the average man or woman will not have the same abilities as a woman or a man in the military. You are far too old to be that ignorant.
Know a woman who is so proud that her 30's old Daughter in the KY Nat Guard has had 6 children and gets to bring a child to her 'work' as well as time for Breast feeding. Add that to time off for bonding. Time off for appointments and the actual birth. Non-deployable for nearly an entire year ...for EACH kid. Errrrrrr, how much has she actually done for/in her unit??? I'm confident she has been DEI promoted regularly. Insanity ... non Deployable...What a tough/prepared 'Army'. WIH are we paying for. Bring back the WACS and Waves. Keep them from important positions affecting logistics for deployed soldiers and nowhere near the combat zone and ESPECIALLY away from Combat positions. Remember the Maine Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember 9/11...Remember Gulf war POW Jessica Lynch (look her up). Not questioning patriotism...just encouraging common sense. Your quotient of killing people and breaking things declines when a good percentage of your fighting force is pregnant and undeployable. We're not even talking about strength differential yet. All this weakens the force (soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines)...in the field... DUH. US Army Ret.
That is the only answer: The best PERSON for the job. In the military, law enforcement, fire fighters EVERY member will have to carry a collegue or victim from danger one day and a 140 pound male because of his PHYSIOLOGY will be able to do that better than a 140 lbs female. Because WE ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY.
Perhaps that's gilding the lily. Some women are very aggressive and need a healthy outlet; have you seen roller derby or women's rugby? I think the bigger issue is the devaluation of motherhood by women.
It isn't just the standards however. It is the relationship between men and women, under stress, specifically combat, and how that interferes with unit effectiveness.
Besides the physical standards, as a woman who has extensively study reproduction and psychology, I fear what hormone swings can cause. I have personally experienced depression from birth control, extreme PMS plus hemorrhaging from monthly cycles, and postpartum psychosis. I’ve known many women with similar experiences and even worse the first 5 years of menopause with rage becoming uncomfortable.
So, my problem with women on the front line is that a man will be more likely to stupidly risk his life to save a woman than he would a man. I think it is not only culturally instilled in us, but spiritually, and innately part of our being. Just like I could sleep through a train, but will be wide awake if I hear my child crying.... It is in my nature I think.
Women have been in combat for decades buddy , get a grip , they also have been around combat and in the area since the civil war . There aren’t enough men anymore who will sign up to fight , so yes women should be allowed to fight for their country . Look around not every man is fit to fight either .. people can be taught and trained .
@@Kroh13 yeah, usually raped and murdered, or enslaved. there may be exceptions in history, like the russian girl who fought in WW1, but most women do not want to be shot at. although I do respect women who do.
Having been close to some combat military special forces types - men - they had tremendous compassion for females on the front line and felt distracted to protect them where their focus should have been on the mission ahead. women should not be bodily on the front line in combat because no thing can prepare either gender from the horrors of war. frankly it is a mental/emotional burden. everything has it's place period dot.
Should standards be reduced to be inclusive? Never. The standards are set, to meet the excellence required. If that excludes and entire gender, than find another position you can attain.
Good discussion. Standards must be maintained. In 1988, under pressure from feminists etc, the Canadian Govt directed the armed forces to conduct a trial on the employment of women in the combat arms. For the infantry (my branch) the trial could never reach its start point. To be conducted, it required the close observation of 60 female infantry soldiers (30 English and 30 French) in a unit for 3 years. They couldn't get to a start point because the female recruits could not pass infantry depot training. Only one anglophone made it through and I served in the same bn as her. Since the trial could not start, the geniuses at Human Rights declared it invalid and ordered the CF to open all trades to women. That was 35 years ago. In an odd twist this order relieved a lot of pressure. The recruiting system was going nuts convincing many female applicants to choose infantry so the trial could start. Thank God the training depots stuck rigidly to their standards. Once the order to allow it happened, much of that artificial pressure was gone. Realistically we don't do naive females any favours by tricking them to go infantry! Many have done it. Many have been successful. One of our regular force infantry bns currently has a female CO. Bottom line is equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. It takes unique, special women to succeed in the infantry. They are very rare. We give them the opportunity to attempt it with no diminishment of standards. It has to be that way. There cannot be 2 standards for infantry warfighting. There's the infantry standard... period. As a result, of all the combat arms, infantry has the fewest females in it... by far.
What effects a woman's physical, mental, and emotional stability also effects her potential children. So, it's not just a matter of what risks she's willing to take for herself at the time. Women are needed to be nurturing and stable as mothers for the sake of the new generations.
Even if a combat service woman accepts and understands the horrific consequences of falling into some of our barbaric enemies hands, they are not able to mitigate the emotional impact on that woman’s fellow male soldiers. Being normal men who have developed some relationship with the women in the unit, will feel a greater obligation upon themselves to defend or offset what may happen to the woman. It’s genetics.
I think she is saying tighten the standards not focus on gender
That would weed out many. Common sense thinking.👍
Yup. Same way professional sports does it. Women can join the NBA if they want so long as they perform in the combine and can compete at the level of the men.
@@MundaneThingsBackwardsYes, but now they're mutilating man, turning them into " Women" so they can perform well!😂😂
It's far more complicated. Can a female, even if she were to make it through selection, be able to sustain? Does this increase lethality and overall effectiveness? According to the most comprehensive study conducted by the Marines, the answer is no on all accounts.
What’s great about this, is it forces the left to admit that women and men perform differently.
As a former army drill instructor I noticed some key differences between the men and women coming into the system beyond the differing physicality. The men tended to be younger (18-19) and were more interested in getting to shoot their weapons and slept through lectures and the women were 3 years older and more cerebral, took notes and consequently did better on the written tests. Since a lot of a passing score was based on written tests they appeared to be equally qualified.
Men were quicker to form effective teams and specialize on tasks such as barracks maintenance. Men had no problem with the idea of a battle buddy who would have your back even if you hated each other's guts most of the time. The women had difficulty with the concept of teams and tended to try to form clicks with friends in other squads or platoons and ignore their assigned buddy. With the guys by the second week the barracks were looking perfect most of the time. The women's barracks looked substandard most of the time and even in the last week they'd be arguing about whose turn it was to perform a particular task.
On another note when my daughter-in law was deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd we sent a Care Package so they could prepare a meal that wasn't typical. She sent us a picture of her section eating the meal and I noticed that her squad was entirely women and the other squad was all men. When I inquired why the difference she told me that the women stayed inside the fire base and the men performed missions outside the wire. Not sure how widespread this practice was, but it certainly was not equitable.
Your first segment is interesting to hear the difference in how they interact. I'd always imagined women would be better at teams but apparently not. And it's ironic and funny that they don't keep the barracks clean.
I had a female drill instructor tell me the EXACT same thing about women's inability to bond, form a team, admit another woman is better at something than she is and ask for help, etc., compared to the men. She actually told me she hated having female flights. (AF TI)
I can imagine that the men who go outside the wire feel more comfortable with another man watching their back than a woman. I have no military experience, but I am 62 years old and have been married for close to 40 years, with two grown daughters. Nothing you tell me about women is surprising at all. Men and women have entirely different evolutionary histories, so it should not surprise us that we think differently. Men have had to deal with armed combat for hundreds of thousands of years, women have not. We should expect men to have, generally speaking, the mental wherewithal to deal with combat and forming teams necessary to that task in ways that women find difficult.
It never is equitable - affirmative action ALWAYS means NOT THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.
Everyone should be allowed to apply for all positions.
@@maluminse1 Women are more concerned about who's turn it is than keeping the place clean. Guys will just keep the place clean, and if they think someone is shirking, that person will get punished by the others in some imaginative way...and if the punished man tells the drill instructor, the punishment will be even worse [by his team].
The standards should NEVER be reduced. NEVER.
AMEN! Anything that reduces or distracts from the primary objective is counter productive. The STANDARD is the STANDARD.
100% agree!
Absolutist positions are rarely sensible when you think about it. Just as an example, if you can lower the standard by 10% but double recruitment, that's probably the better move. The US military is struggling BADLY with recruitment. You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.
Lol the standards are always reduced because a warm body is better than no body. If you ask soldiers from previous generations, it was a lot harder in the past than now training wise solely because men got weaker and they need positions filled.
Amen, Standards should be raised. Every truck driver, clerk , mechanic should be able to to jump into the roll of Infantry, War isn't fair it may decide that for us..
It is an absolute joy to watch two intelligent people
AMEN!!
Always - it is very rare 👌
None from the far left 🤔😉
i didn’t know who she was until today. apparently she’s on a terror watchlist for her deals with Asaad and Putin. also she gives me trans vibes…i’m not sure she’s a woman.
"Intelligent" is the new "Transgressive".
Where? Oh, right, lowered standards.
As a retired Special Forces Soldier I believe the FIRST THING that has to change is get rid of seperate Male and Female physical fitness standards! The enemy will not discriminate. Anyone who thinks a 120-140lb woman will be able to defeat a 210-230lb man is mistaken. How is that woman going to carry a 220lb man out of the kill zone? Why is there no women in the NFL? Women can not do everything a man can do the same as a man can't do everything a woman can, they can complement each others strengths and minimize their limitations. America must employ and use women better than just allowing them in every MOS. Yes, I believe women can be effective in SOME Special Forces missions but NOT on a 12 man Operational Detachment Alpha.
Well put.....women and men are not "equal"; they are "complimentary" by nature (yin / yang). Having exclusionary requirements for combat positions is simple common sense...which is what we need to get back to in this country.
I say they just let them have steroids if they want them so they can lift more and pass selection, screw it, it's war
Sounds good. I'm a female military vet, and think that makes sense.
You are right brother. 18A
It’s just part of the psyop dude
Nobody with a brain in their head thinks women can contend with men
Why yall are so easily manipulated is the real question
As a retired Firefighter ive been able to work with many brilliant women. Their roles were primarily in EMS which is where they excel. When entering a burning building on a search and rescue mission you have to be confident that your partner has the ability to drag your sorry butt out of the building. This is for the safety of all concerned. Everyone goes through to same physical agility testing. You must meet all the criteria!
@@johnwesner3935 reality. The young generally can do it.the older,30+ getting soft and out of shape. Getting those pouches. If the woman is there she will drag your sorry ass out too. It may be harder,but she will not let you die or die trying to do it. Men think women do not have courage,do not have the same love of country,the same feeling to defend and keep what we have,the same love of people,Adrenalin that kicks in in emergency or when in danger. Well they do. They have the same love of life and survival. Biggest issue there is culture of a man will be there to save and protect. In fact they are not. You are alone and need to defend yourself,by yourself. The reason it generally ends up badly is girls are not taught how to defend and take care of themselves and be prepared for a predator.
I would emphasize "ALL" in your last sentence
As an AF officer (40 years ago) I attended army parachute training. There were minimally acceptable standards for sit-ups, chin-ups and squats. Women were just being introduced. The standards were reduced. That is the truth. Every other position in the military should be open but NOT COMBAT.
I am a woman of 68 years, always thought women don't belong in the combat department in Military.
Rights come with responsibility, Equality means equality.
As a man, I would not take all the dangerous, nasty jobs so females could have all the good jobs. Screw that, let women do all the jobs in the military.
Also a female soldier can be raped quicker than a male GI. Of course a male GI can of course be raped by a man, but in the middle East or other Muslim countries a man wouldn't be raped by a man
I agree completely. You really have to wonder about a country that allows women to fight his wars.
I am a disabled VietNam veteran. There are probably five people in support of each combat troop. Women can fill these rolls. They don't have to be in combat to be effective.
I DON'T WAN'T TO CONTRODICT YOU SIR. ALL MY RESPECT TO YOU! BUT IN LIFE SURPRISING NECESSITIES MAKES US PEOPLE TO BE ABLE DOING THINGS, EVEN WE SURPRISE OURSELVES?? DID I DO YTHA - AT BASAS!
#2 - I AGREE WITH YOU, UP TPO A POINT SIR, BUT HEY, THE OPPONENT / ENEMY SU - URE WILL BE SURPRISED? WHENA WOMAN WILL TRAKE CARE OF, SEVERAL TOUGHYS??! I'M SUR YOU DO KNOW, WHAT I MEAN??!!!
Only if they are the BEST person for the job, and NOT just because they can do it at the expense of a male who could do it better.
'..these _roles_ .'
@@desbell7431lot of jobs in the military don’t have high physical fitness requirements. Checkout a navy ship sometime(not navy seals, just regular sailors). Women can do plenty of jobs just fine. Yeah, most women can be a navy seal but neither can most men. You can find jobs where 50% men can do it but less than 50% women can do it but so what. Just do everything merit based. Don’t worry about gender. Have early screenings so people can be filtered into jobs that contribute the most to society.
@@walterwilliams1791There are still many issues putting men and women together .
If you can not carry your mate off the front line you should not be there
We should not send our military into harms way. I am more concerned that ALL people should defend their family and homes ie have access and know how to use guns.
THIS was a prime concern, and was trained during our MOB on the way to Iraq in 2009. Combat Aviation, Attack Recon Apache chopper battalions. No 130lb woman wearing 70 lbs of armor and still more in weapons and ammo, in 120 degree F heat is going to drag a 240 lb, 6 foot 4 inch man dressed the same way anywhere. Period. She will simply become a second casualty thereby endangering further troops and the mission.
That part!
@@randybisbee848 Me, being a 150 lb, 5 foot 6 inch man would be hard pressed to carry that man anywhere. And I wouldn't be able to drag him far.
You might want to consider keeping each unit to similar sized humans.
@@randybisbee848I never have been or ever will be in good enough shape to do that, and I’m a man.
What an intelligent, confident, based, got her shit together woman.
Oh, and beautiful too!
The cream of the crop of American womanhood. ❤ 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲💪
She's what an American top class woman is.
Tulsi does not appreciate men who slober in response to her attractive looks,
@@billparks7368 thank you for looking at this woman as a person and admitting to her qualities
I love the precision and careful choice of words by both Peterson and Gabbard. Brilliant.
Couldnt have said it better myself. Very well spoken they are. Straight to the point.
Matthew 5:37 - "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
It was not a direct answer but a careful choice of words alluding to the obvious. I would have more respect if they would just say "no, women do not meet the standard for combat positions." But it goes beyond qualification as well. Combat is not suited for the nurturing nature of women, and nor should women be exposed to the violent carnage of battle let alone participating in it, in a civil society. Brilliant semantics, not a firm stance.
When you listening her every time bragging on how she served in the military you would think she was a female Rambo while in reality she was an admin in a medical unit. Of course now that she scored a job flipping on all of her position she can pander to the electorate that she's been sucking up in the past year or so
Too careful, if you are too careful in Jordan's own words you'll never progress through the thought process, you need to be able to make mistakes in language if you are to work through anything conceptual
@@joeschmoe6720 this man came with facts and a bible
Jordan. You look so relaxed in your recent videos, and it makes me very glad. I hope things are going well. Thank you for all your help.
I think she did answer it...if the person has the skill and capability, have been tested and demonstrated they have the ability to do the job, and are the best equipped to do the job, then they should be placed there. That standard, by it's very realism, will absolutely rule out a majority of women and a percentage of men.
THIS
I have an issue with that answer, which was fairly rational in itself.
How do we prevent people from down the line softening the standard? That's pretty much how we got where we are today.
We had standards for police officers, firemen, soldiers, etc, and they all got softened over time. First to include crappier men that just get by, to eventually women. Then you get the people who purposely soften the standard to gain political points.
As it is, 99.99%(if not 100) of women are useless for combat, the number is high enough that we benefit more from discarding the option altogether than to allow the possibility of a 0.01% exceptional lady to make it in, because leaving that door open guarantees the softening of the standard isn't far away, for all the wrong reasons mentioned above.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u I get your concern, but at the end of the day, saying "you need to be male" is ALSO a standard, and can be changed by people down the line as well.
The answer to this kind of questions, IMHO, is: we need to recover the principle of teleology. Things exists FOR SOMETHING. Armed Forces exist to WIN WARS. Anything that makes them better AT THAT should be the standard.
The same applies to sex (it exists to propagate the species), and the same applies to everything else in life. What furthers their natural objective (teleology) is good, what hinders it is bad.
Introducing a capable woman into an all man unit brings other complexities and problems besides ability.
To let that one woman in you must alter multiple things for thousands of men to attempt to maintain the same efficiency and cohesiveness.
She has to train, eat, sleep, shower, and change with men - not just on the job in combat, but in the training pipeline and when she is back home. Nobody is going to ever let hormones play a role, including her monthly fluctuation? Nobody is ever going to overextend risk to treat her differently? She's going to average the same career length as a man and never get pregnant, or always be the same strength after pregnancy?
Absolutely not.
Not worth it, especially in such a high risk environment.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u 100% There is waste in patronizing the issue. It's not worth doing. Your argument is best.
I'm all about basing things on merit 👏
Women do not belong in physical combat regardless of merit.
I served in a field unit from1980-88 when they were just starting to let women go into the field. I found that unless you had a group of women that could be self sustaining, I would get pulled away from my job/jobs to set up tents, dig latrines, slit trenches for the women PLUS I had to fulfill my own jobs as well. So they got to sit back and smoke and I got double the work, not a fan of that.
Was it there problem or the supervisor in charge. Humm
@@RVBadlands2015 If they were the right type of person for this, they'd have wanted to dig their own trenches and help their teammates no?
I had the same experience during my time in the Army from 88-96. We had 4 women in my boat unit (LCM-8) that if we had one of them on the boat crew (typically 4-5), that female had gender "seniority" to the one and only quiet and dry on the boat while off shift. That meaning, the other male crew members off shift would spend their downtime out in the weather. When we were off the boat and doing FTXs, the male soldiers would have to carry a portion of the females standard kit weight. We would have to dig their latrines, set up their tents in a female only area, and then post guard on their tent site. Every year, we all had to re-qualify for our PT tests and the female's expected passing number per event was always lower than the male counterparts were. Lastly, the female's monthly cycle would allow them to go on "light" duty. Long story short, women in the field with men were a hinderence (slowed down) the mission. There are plenty of military occupations out there that are better suited for female members. I didn't read a study to learn this, my experienced years in uniform taught me and my fellow male soldiers this same story.
@@RVBadlands2015 Oh it is ALWAYS someone ELSES fault, isn't it !
Did it ever occur to you that your CO was targeting you personally?
The PRT tests (physical readiness tests) in the military have lower standards for women. Women aren't required to do as many push ups, sit ups, and the times for running are longer for women. The physical standards for women are rock bottom in the military.
I really like her. She always takes care to phrase her answer perfectly, is really smart and keeps her cool. She should have a brilliant career in front of her.
She avoided answering the question.
@@ryleighloughty3307 she did answer it though. She said yes if they can pass the standards. But the standards have to reflect the reality of the job, and shouldn't be too hard or too easy. Try using your ears and the thing in between them
@@ryleighloughty3307 She answered every question you obviously did not understand what she said
@@dennisgill3459
Are you saying that I am stupid?
@@moonasha
So, if you do not like a comment, you attack the writer?
38 years as a soldier, sailor and professional firefighter, I have seen some things. I have seen women who couldn't rack a round into the M2 even though they were the gunner. I have seen the fire department lower physical standards so women could pass, lowering most of the upper body strength tasks and I have seen hanky panky on Navy ships because 20 somethings couldn't wait until the next port visit. It's a mess.
lowering standards is never good
case closed
next question
😊
My concern with women in the military, especially combat, is they are a distraction. sorry to others that will complain about it but it's reality when you have a team full of men they all get in order and know what their job is to do and they fulfill it even when the ones that don't do the job they are taken care of one way or another. you can't do that to a woman like you can to a man it's just ain't going to happen. Men know they have a responsibility to defend and protect women, and if you put them in harm's way, that's where the distraction comes in.
I've said this so many times. Much to the consternation of people in our modern culture. Honorable men will absolutely treat a woman differently than they will a man. It is innate and will probably never change. Add to that the specific hygiene needs of a woman and the sexual tension, and it's not a recipe for success. It may be workable, but it's not optimal. Optimal should be the goal. This ain't a social club we're talking about. It's life or death.
I served in an Army MEDEVAC unit when one of the first women was assigned as a flight medic. The first woman, after completing the qualification requirements to be a flight medic, had an emotional breakdown during her very first real life mission. The second woman assigned performed spectacularly! I believe that this dynamic also exists for males as well. Not everyone can do every job.
It's not the same. We don't dispense with gender realities just because we like the tomboy, exception.
Great assessment. I deployed to Balad as basically a server administrator. I left the base within the last 3 weeks of US presence on the base and it was starting to get hairy with rocket and mortar attacks increasing. There were some of my fellow male comms teammates that requested to leave early because they were struggling to maintain their wits with the increased risk. Yet there were females that stayed and worked right along side me closing down the bases data center until the very end. Each person is different.
A flight medic doesn't run up and down hills you literally fly to where ya gotta go under the security of other attack helicopters or ISR and ground units for protection.
As a flight medic how many times did ya knock down doors? Lmfao 😂 but yes us combat killers would and do love seeing a pretty face right before we die. I thank you for your stellar service 🙏
100%. We need the same metrics for all individuals. If a woman can pass those, I trust her. If not, don't put me in a fox hole with her.
Probably not many remember during the early push towards Baghdad two female soldiers got separated from their unit. Both tortured and assaulted, one soldier died the other survived but had all her leg & arm bones broken. The Iraqi doctor who sought out an American army unit to save the surviving soldier was given asylum in the U.S. for him and his family for his efforts.
@@vinny2195 thank you for your comment and not tearing down the women for being.
Women as support, but not in combat. The average woman could not pick up a wounded man and carry him in a combat situation. She has never had to do that......but I sill she is a great pick for the job she has been selected for.
You'd be surprised what humans can do when the adrenaline is flowing. There are many reported instances of women lifting cars when a loved one is trapped underneath. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing.
I don't think the average woman as you put it would even consider enlisting though.
@@Crimsonedge1 There are also reports of alien abductions and unicorns. Don't believe everything you read.
They can be pilots.
@@Crimsonedge1 It's true that adrenaline helps with physical strength, but those reports are not the same as women bicep curling 1000 pounds; instead, it's usually just a fraction of the weight of the vehicle, which is still impressive, but not the weight of the whole car. Additionally, the muscles which are activated to 100% usage are very likely to be severely damaged, and the "strength boost" does not last nearly long enough for combat situations. Combat is not about a single 5 second window of increased strength and stamina, rather, combat is about continuously increasing requirements for high level of mental, emotional, and physical strength and stamina.
What a lady, the complete package!
Everywhere except home where she was needed
1. Serving is a privilege, not a right; and jobs should be based on need, not opportunities.
2. Not all combat roles are equal.
3. If combat unit commanders can articulate a NEED for women in a certain role, so be it.
4. Thankful for the men and women who have served.
1. if it's a privilege then why do men have to sign draft cards?
2. Clueless comment
3. Another clueless comment
4. Only thankful for those *combat* veterans (people sign up for selfish reasons, duh)
These new "right-wing Feminists" have started to infiltrate our movement
Serving was not a privilege for those of us who were conscripted. It was a privilege I for one could have done without.
Ah, but you're misunderstanding the purpose of the US military. It's not a meritocratic task oriented entity. It's a jobs program. Both directly in that it will hire basically anyone with two feet and a heartbeat. And indirectly through the geographically (and thus politically) widespread defense industry.
I asked my daughter this question about women serving on the front lines. She said she would go if ordered to go. She served four years in the NAVY, although she was an expert marksman she is only 5-2. Women do not belong on the front lines, even if they are capable.
I think she's right; everyone needs to achieve the same standard. Women fought in the Civil War disguised as men and did a good job of it. The problem comes when the standards are changed "to allow more women to take the job," which has been the case in the US military for decades.
why are you arguing the exception, not the rule?
@@GummeeH3why are you assuming that women can’t do the job at all ? How fit are you ?
It also promotes disharmony when your primary groups measure is being undermined inorder to "promote" numbers, especially when this scoring also affects your chances of promotion.
any time a standard is lowered to include anyone, the product is diminished, and this could mean life or death
@@Kroh13hahahaha
Two things; First, I have heard from German veterans and read about the women in the Soviet Army who were matched against the German Wermacht. The policy of the Germans was to immediately liquidate female prisoners. And exactly the same for female partisan fighters as well. No time was alotted for sexual assaults. Interrogation was carried out, sometimes, and then a pistol shot to the back of the head. Period. Second, I was infantry in Vietnam. 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division Volunteered to go back twice more. I have never personally served around a woman who could do my job in a rifle company, in battalion Recon platoon or later, in the 1st Brigade LRRP platoon. When the leader says "pick up the gun" the M240 machine gun weighs about 27 pounds and the ammo is seven pounds per hundred rounds. Basic load was five hundred rounds. "You do what you gotta do". That includes putting a 180 pound casualty on a hovering med-evac. If you can't do your part, you shouldn't be there. WAR IS NOT A SOCIAL STATEMENT.
I was glad that Jordan brought up the issue of women as potential POWs. I think whether they choose to face that eventuality men need to say no. We have lost the moral principle of men's responsibility to protect women. When men do not accept that responsibility we are lost as a nation and as a human race.
What about the Kurdish YPJ ? ? ? All women, and they kicked ISIL's ass !
IF, or when, the SHTF, women DO need to be prepared and ABLE to step up, as Russian women did during WW2 ?
Absolutely NO lowering of standards, but women HAVE to regain that ability.
The women of SOE in WW2 fought JUST as bravely as any "Man"
@@GilbertdeClare0704agreed. What we have is a severe culture issue of women not being treated with the same pressure of responsibility as men. Moreover we have a fitness issue across the country. As a female veteran I hated the segregated PT standards and often did better than some of my male colleagues without trying very hard. It comes down to discipline and your mental toughness. What makes men and women extraordinary is what they are willing to put themselves thru and endure. We need a warrior culture and I believe that would reduce the amount of sexual assaults for both men and women and the idea of personal responsibility that you carry to be a productive citizen would be very healthy and beneficial for society. Everyone needs to carry their weight.
I personally would fight harder knowing I had women in my unit that needed me. I would venture this would be true for many men that feel protective of women. Fighting harder is something that should also be considered. There’s another aspect to the morality question. Is it moral to deny someone the opportunity to do something they want to do just because they were born a female? I hear you on their views of traditional morality concerning women, but it’s not our place to tell them what they can and can’t do as long as they meet the performance standard.
That moral responsibilty is propaganda. Only the women in a man's life that help him deserve that privelege. Everyone else is owed an equal amount of respect and protection that is significantly less than what is owed to your immediate family.
A random woman is no more valuable to a man than another man.
@@the1joyster I SO, SO, SO agree with you my friend ! DEFINITELY ! It is so TOTALLY that RETURN of that Warrior Culture that is desperately needed ! I read in a Post war report that the Female Agents of SOE who were captured and tortured, on average, resisted torture BETTER than men, and hardly EVER betrayed their fellow soldiers or civilians helping them.
My Ex was better at shooting kneeling, than I was, yet prone or standing, I was better.
Driving a Russian T55 or Ferret Scout Car and SHE was the better driver of both. She also got her Hanggliding EP1 and EP2 faster than I did, yet the reverse with Skydiving.
I have seen it in my work as a Therapist that schools come down MUCH harder on GIRLS getting aggressive than boys, which TEACHES them to turn it all inwards.
LEGITIMISING that healthy assertion/aggression in our culture where all kids LEARN not to fear it but to CONTROL it, and then NO reduction in standard whatsoever, creates the BEST person for the job.
It is the TASK that matters, not whether one has a d*ck between one's legs
Former combat soldier here; keep women out infantry, sof, etc. Any trigger pulling ground combat units period. If you can't carry or drag any of your team mates to safety if they get hit, then you are in the wrong place. Secondly, we don't have time for your time of the month in the field and what comes with that. Plenty of other mil jobs out there for women. The women that passed Ranger school is because standards were lowered, and there is documented proof of this.
if a man and women are fighting side by side and the woman gets shot or injured, the man can carry them out oif the line of fire to safety.... A woman COULD NOT pick up a 220lb man and carry them to safety... maybe drag them out of the line of fire, but you would end up with 2 dead soldiers... they are NOT physically capable.. period
This. Is. A. Fact.
Neither could all men. As she said, single selection standard for men and women who want to serve. If you meet it your in.
@RonniePeterson women couldn't meet it, that's the only reason it changed
I am female and was an Army medic and agree. Job assignments and training and expectations need to be realistic. I would have had to drag a wounded soldier out, no way I could carry one.
@@RonniePeterson stop simping brah.. it wont help you
I love that discussions like this are happening!
My dad was a WW 2 airman in the 8th Air Force, shot down over Germany and captured. 16 months in. POW camp transformed a healthy 170 pound man into a 98 pound skeleton on the verge of death when liberated. He and I had many detailed discussions about his time in captivity and there were many horrors that he was the victim of. He was an extraordinary man who lived with his PTSD the best he could. He was an excellent provider to me and my siblings and set an example of honesty, hard work and patriotism. But one can now see how troubled he was from his wartime experience. I do not believe it is wise to put any woman in this possible environment due to the obvious additional physical risks from potential enemy sexual predators. I beg our military to not put our treasured women, the possible mothers of our people, in this kind of harms way. No way is this a good idea. I guarantee my father would be against the notion of women in front line combat because of this.
Yes and here is a very important issue that most have missed. A woman's first responsibility in society is to keep the population up which is a tough and time consuming role. In all out war in which there would be no civilians a savvy commander would make women the prime target; Ultimately no female soldiers, then no male soldiers, anywhere. The war is over.
My concern is that people think this level of depravity and soulless behavior is something the modern world wouldn't see like "the old days". There are two guarantees in every war since the very first one in human history all the way to the last: 1) War brings out the absolute worst in humanity and 2) The monsters created in war were really not meant to be there and are only there at the behest of the rich and powerful - the true monsters of our world.
We think war is a civilized necessity. I only see it as a direct correlation to wealth and power.
Your father was an American hero who sacrificed much for this country. I hope he is well in the afterlife, or whatever version of that he believed in.
Women who are in the military chose to be there. No one is forcing Women or men to join. In the case of a war, we need as many people as we can get to fight, man or woman. Use common sense.
@@ELFR1205
Yeah?....
(Looks at the soviet union and china)
Ummmmmm....quality over quantity, you ridiculous communist.
He touched on it but they didn't go deeper...The effect on the morale of fighting units severely drops if a woman/women is killed/injured in combat. When another man dies it's sad, but mainly affects the soldier's friends...When a woman dies, it affects everybody. I don't think DEI belongs in the military :(
Woman are Liability in Combat....The Priority becomes to Protect the Woman than to Complete the Task....A Captured Woman is Demoralizing
That's a consideration, but I think it should be the woman's decision whether she wants to place herself in that situation, assuming she can meet the standard. No question, being captured is going to be way worse for a woman than a man.
I think the biggest liability is the risk of relationships forming and that immediately changes the order of priority.
@@thadofalltrades No, it's not her decision. If combat effectiveness increases with mixed personnel then fine. The Marines did a study and that wasn't the case. Mixed personnel faired worse in combat scenarios.
@@thadofalltrades Disagree. Women should not be in combat. Women should be in support roles only, well away from the front lines. If a man is down, his fellow male soldiers have the strength to retrieve him. A women soldier does not. She is a liability.
@rlhicks1 that's a different argument though. That goes into standards. That's not what I was addressing. If you set standards and a woman meets them, she should be permitted to participate and it's her choice to do so. If the standard is no women in combat scenarios then the discussion is over.
@@rlhicks1Fair point. I agree
I have heard that women in combat can be a psychological hindrance for the men due to the protective nature of these men. A woman in danger in combat compared to a man in danger can cause a pause in quick judgment for the safety of the female that can cause far more casualties. Anyone else hear this?
That’s definitely true too
So you're saying that women don't let their emotions cloud their judgment when in combat, but men do. I don't think a man too emotional to do his job should be in the military.
So its men's problem not women 😂😂😂😂😂
She has great clarity and wisdom.
If it's not fair for women to play a game/ sports against a man....then how in the hell is it ok and effective for women to fight in combat against a man??? When it's life or death and not just game where you go back home in a couple hours. Explain that insanity to me. WTF
Agreed! 💯
I am a man. But your words match my basic feelings also. But I would prefer women far far away from fighting.
One standard. Excellence. One physical standadrd. No lower standard for any reason.
Thoughtfully answered.
I’m a vet, I’m also a woman, I don’t believe 99% of the women that I was with would not want to be on the front lines. I don’t think we were physically able to do that job. But, if a woman could pass the same PT scores as men, but not lowered for women scores, then I say yes. But the standards for women are always lower for females..
I agree with TG and if a person meets the standard they should be able to do that job, but DO NOT lower the standard for anyone. It takes a special person to enlist in the military, another kind of special to want to enlist in infantry, and then it gets even more special for any sort of special forces. The standard should weed out the weak, period.
if a woman can pick up and carry a 220lb man out of the line of fire, so be it, but unless it is the late Joanie Laurie (Chyna from WWE) people will die
Women can't do the job, that's why the standard is there. And women can't reach the standard, that's why they were lowered. Women do not deserve to be in combat positions.
Her perspective is quite reasonable but there are additional reasons to select men that simply don't have to be measured when you select only men such as bone density. The reality is that women are simply far more expensive to train and deploy for jobs such as infantry because they spend so much time injured.
Another aspect in a mixed unit the men in the group will always prefer the male specialist in harms way because men are hard wired to protect women and children first. Therefore each group has reduced availability of specialist skills, and the men in the group will expose themselves more and more often.
Along with having the mental and physical requirements for the job, you have to look at the overall effectiveness and casualty rates of mixed sex units vs all male units, and even all female units. Then follow the data. Mothers shouldn't have to grieve their lost children for social engineering.
Obviously all male units will perform the best.. if the women have a lower physical performance standard than the men they end up becoming a hindrance to the team making it a less effective unit as they wont be able to carry their own weight.. in frontline combat at least
The standards by themselves is not enough.
Team dynamics and paternalism will always play a part.
Men in a high stress environment will act differently towards women.
So long as the test is the test and not the test "but we need women, so we can waive this requirement".
That’s wokery that Trump will root out, which is why he picked Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.
As a woman and retired firefighter I can attest to the fact that no matter how tough you think you are as a woman, an out of shape man of equal height is much stronger!
In my prime I was a power lifter and very athletic. I could out lift, out run, out climb most and keep up with the guys.
My muscles were to much for my tendons to handle. My body started to break down. I’m now old and I’ve had 20+ orthopedic surgeries!
I’m no feminist I just loved doing the same thing guys enjoyed. Had women been able to sign up for combat duty back in the day I would have been at the front of the line!
Being older and wiser now I know women should NOT be allowed to fight on our front lines. Also standards should never be lowered in any way for the military, law enforcement or fire departments along with others!
Amen, my joints and tendons are shot 'doing the job, so I could earn the pay.'
Make the standard high. If there's a woman who can meet the standard, then great, otherwise no.
Make the standards high for the men then . I met plenty of men that couldn’t pass the tests
Stop hating on Nature.
Changing enlistment standards due to dangerously low enlistment is different than changing the underlined premise of protection built within our biological coding (DNA).
I don't think women shouldn't be allowed to enlist but, the pool of women vs. men meeting physical and mental standards will be much smaller.
Standards for combat should be across the board, any variation would directly put lives at risk.
@@Kroh13
@@Kroh13the standards are high for the men. It’s inappropriate to lower them for women.
@@Kroh13 that's true. Standards have been dropping steadily for too long.
@@Kroh13 Well, they are, the problem is right now in most physical jobs we have 1 standard for men and a different altogether for women that has much lower requirements, which is ridiculous.
No. Keep em out!
As an old Nam Vet all I wanted was someone who could/would do their job and do it well. I wasn't trained to bake cookies and do needle point.
@@le13579 Twist words, much?
@@jdilksjr No, but arguing with a Vietnam vet is poor form on my part. So I'll delete my words.
I am a retired Paramedic with 17+ years in EMS. I am retired because the standard for women physically was less than what was required for men. I had to do all of the heavy work. Anything that took physical power or effort was mine to do. I injured both of my shoulders with this female partner. I was the first she took out, and after the third person injured by her inability to perform, she was moved out of the field work. Having a physically capable woman can be helpful, but without that ability to carry the weight of the tasks to be delivered, someone always gets hurt.
This stupidity has to stop.
The Israeli military studied women in combat and found that captured female soldiers are significantly more valuable to the enemy. Also, men tend to not follow orders when women are in danger and will do what it takes to protect the women, perhaps endangering themself, others and perhaps the fate of their nation. It has been argued that men should be trained otherwise. What is the cost of training men to disregard their instincts to protect women?
💯💯💯💯
Bleeding once a month, for a week, is a disqualifier for any frontline, trench duty
Why? Women don't just bleed out, have you perhaps considered taking a health class?
I have to say that it always made me sad and upset at seeing videos of women returning from being deployed who left their babies behind. As a mother, I could never have done that.
I'm glad she says that skills rank out above all else... there are some combat vets who are male who disagree with this but i don't. You got the skills? Then you get the job, as it should be
I served in the RAF and for me it is not how women operate on the front line but what would happen to them if caught my an enemy.
Every fibre of my soul wants to protect women from harm.
If that makes me a fossil then so be it.
From 25 miles north of London, be lucky stay safe.
I did my basic training in a unit when they took in the first ever female recruits. I feel just as you do, the main thing is I and others would be distracted by our feeling of need to protect them.
Then on top of that I saw that even though officially no exceptions were made and no standards were lowered, in reality it was almost like having a politician visit the unit with how much effort was done to cater to their special needs.
So many units (not all) also have such physical requirements (note: especially when you add in the need of extreme endurance things get even more skewed) that very few women will be able to hold their own. In our unit only a fraction of the females could really handle themselves, and the resources put in for that low return was ridiculous.
I think one thing is forgotten here: The cost to the military per soldier. The military's mission is to protect the nation, not to cater to the self-expression desires of a handful of women. If it's too much of a hassle to upend the whole process just for the handful of women who *_might_* qualify then there should be no imperative to do that. Keep things simple, save money, be effective.
You dont feel the same to protect a fellow man ?
@ Maybe just maybe it is something that is engrained so deep that it goes back to a basic animal instinct.
A cock will put itself between a fox and its hens.
Not sure how else I can explain it.
That is exactly why women have no place in the military
I’m sorry, the sexes are not equal. For example, menstruation is not a thing for men, and it can have an effect on capabilities.
So yes, by all means select for ability first, but take into consideration that humans not hermaphrodites.
My son was career Army. He told us that women do not have the physical strength and that they get frightened when faced with combat.
Common sense should tell us that. Absolutely true
If they met the qualifications they should be given the opportunity.
I think that's definitely true in most cases. Of course there are always exceptions though. But we need to hold them to the same level of scrutiny we do with men.
@@RVBadlands2015 They can't meet the male standards.
The only women I noticed could handle it were a few lesbians, but even they didn't have the upper body strength.
What they failed to discuss is that men in combat along side women are protective over their female counterparts and that took away their focus from being the best combat soldier they could be. Very dangerous.
Tulsi is elusive with women on war. Anyway woman with kids is not moral to sacrifice them on war.
💯
Absolutely!!! 👍🏻
THE ATTKING ENEMY, WON'T ASK A MOTHER? MAY I ATTACK YOU? MAY I COME BACK TUESDAY @ 2:35 ? ? THEY ATTAK KILL ETC. !! KIDS OR NO KIDS?!!
Well I think it equally worthy of note to consider the effects of a female soldier being blown apart and that being witnessed by her fellow troops?
Allow women the choice to go into the military, but don’t place them in a position to put others at risk
Russian Female POWs in WWII got the worst treatment imaginable.
100% agree military should be 100% voluntary
I like Tulsi, but women should not be in combat, end of story. They can help in many valuable roles, but we do not need to put women in harms way, that's a societal mindset.
Being able or "qualified" is one thing. Being captured, and subsequent treatment as a female prisoner by enemies who do not follow the rules of combat is another entirely. Thank you, doctor, for raising an extremely important point that few have the parts to speak about openly. I agree the soldier may have made the choice to accept that possibility but the rest of her group will be affected heavily by what they imagine is happening to their captured comrade and that may have an affect on their effectiveness.
Men get raped also. Are there statistics on rape for male POWS and are they reliable? Men used to be less likely to report rape than women.
Yes from what I have studied, units should be separated by sex. Let women be in roles where the natural instincts of everyone enhances effectiveness.
I worked with one of Jessica's fellow soldiers at APG, MD. We talked about how that went down. That poor soldier went through hell until she was rescued. SGT__ said that what they did with female soldiers was terrifying. Based on conversations with SGT _____, what they did to him was also terrifying. Female soldiers should never be put in that situation regardless if they volunteered knowing it could happen to them. United States Army (SFC/Retired 1985-2007) JM2
Even if some people are not suited for combat roles, there are lots of roles they can contribute in. I think it's more important that military service is voluntary. They don't have to be the best, they just have to be good enough. Plenty of women are good enough, so don't deny them the opportunity if they want it
Standards should be Standard.
It's not about "standards"
I met the standard
But when I was on patrol as a medic in Afghanistan I was shit scared ALL THE TIME
That we'd get into the shit and I wouldn't be fast enough...or strong enough...or good enough
Standards are for training
Just good enough ain't good enough when lives are on the line
I'm grateful I never had to pass that test
Yeah, Tulsi changed my perception on women in the field. She's great.
Why doesn’t anyone talk about the differences between men and women during adrenaline rushes. Average or weak men could perform better under pressure than strong women because men gain lots of strength when adrenaline is pumping.
The men get distracted to protect women during combat.
In an ambush/IUD blast I really doubt you have time to check the gender of the person next to you
i think a professional won't get distracted by that in serious situations.
In combat, it's not a courtessy rumba?? ! It's discipline - quick witt / thinking! And a whole lot of, common sense! HHMMM?WHAT? WHAT?! WHATS? - THAT PATRIOT'S . . OH - O YES, LIKE Lt. Col. GABBARD !!🗽
@@TolgaAtamtuerk If I was in combat with someone who looked like Tulsi next to me, Yes I and many other Men would be distracted...even if it's for a second...that's when someone could get killed
@@arronmac2925then YOU don’t belong in the military if you’re that mentally weak!
I served with a few badass female soldiers. They were outliers for their sex, but were probably in the lower 50% percentile when it came to physical strength and endurance of their male counterparts.
When we hear "combat" most people picture infantry fighting, but that's just one element. Aviation, armor, artillery make more sense to be integrated than more physically demanding branches like Infantry or Engineers.
If I had one wish for Jordan Peterson, it would be that he accept the position of Surgeon General so that he might work on the problem of children's mental health in schools, the mental health of our homeless population, and the mental health of the nation as a whole. This task is monumental, and I can think of no one more capable than Jordan Peterson.
He’s Canadian. He may not qualify but brilliant idea!
SET STANDARDS. People are not equally skilled. Thank you Tulsi Gabbard.
There is a point here that’s not being made about this topic. I don’t think Americans are ready to see a female soldier who may get captured being abused in every way possible by an enemy who thinks that females are inferior to men and are very cruel to their own women. Please address this issue before you go any further on this issue.
In about 1982, in Germany, we had a monthly Status report showing that 4% of my 3rd Infantry Division was pregnant. That 4% was not deployable. Is that anyway to run an army?
I had to pick up the slack from both men,and woman who I worked with in the military because they lacked the physical strength to lift heavy bomb racks, launchers and Pylons. The Navy knows what jobs are physically demanding, and yes there should be physical standards to screen people out of those jobs to make it fair for the people who have to do extra work. Equality does not work when heavy shit has to be lifted.
Let's settle this once and for all for combat positions. Can you fireman carry by yourself a 200-pound wounded comrade 50 yards? If you can't, you are not qualified!
Lower the standards. Lower the outcome. Everyone loses.
In my neighbourhood recently there was a wood chopping carnival, women were competing against the men. The stark contrast between women and men in the competition was very, very evident.
The women were struggling to cut through the first half of the log when the men had finished cutting right through their logs, not only that they had to rest in between chopping strokes on their second half of the logs. A bloke in his seventies was competing against the women and he still finished way ahead of them.
The ladies were all in their twenties and large but they didn’t have the physical stamina and strength as the men
Chopping wood for a one time carnival is very different than training for combat. Women and men who are in the military train for it, the average man or woman will not have the same abilities as a woman or a man in the military. You are far too old to be that ignorant.
She listens well. She has great sense
And she is eloquent. She will do well as the DNI.
Know a woman who is so proud that her 30's old Daughter in the KY Nat Guard has had 6 children and gets to bring a child to her 'work' as well as time for Breast feeding. Add that to time off for bonding. Time off for appointments and the actual birth. Non-deployable for nearly an entire year ...for EACH kid. Errrrrrr, how much has she actually done for/in her unit??? I'm confident she has been DEI promoted regularly. Insanity ... non Deployable...What a tough/prepared 'Army'. WIH are we paying for.
Bring back the WACS and Waves. Keep them from important positions affecting logistics for deployed soldiers and nowhere near the combat zone and ESPECIALLY away from Combat positions. Remember the Maine Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember 9/11...Remember Gulf war POW Jessica Lynch (look her up). Not questioning patriotism...just encouraging common sense. Your quotient of killing people and breaking things declines when a good percentage of your fighting force is pregnant and undeployable. We're not even talking about strength differential yet. All this weakens the force (soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines)...in the field... DUH.
US Army Ret.
Why are you so involved in someone else's business?
Love your interviews Dr Peterson, but please let your guest speak more, than you do. Thank you
Great answer.
That is the only answer:
The best PERSON for the job.
In the military, law enforcement, fire fighters EVERY member will have to carry a collegue or victim from danger one day and a 140 pound male because of his PHYSIOLOGY will be able to do that better than a 140 lbs female. Because WE ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY.
Men act differently when women are present.
💯
Women are for nature and nurture not for aggression and roids.
Perfect way to put it💯
Perhaps that's gilding the lily. Some women are very aggressive and need a healthy outlet; have you seen roller derby or women's rugby?
I think the bigger issue is the devaluation of motherhood by women.
And you think a man is for aggression and raids, that's all they are good for?
It isn't just the standards however. It is the relationship between men and women, under stress, specifically combat, and how that interferes with unit effectiveness.
Besides the physical standards, as a woman who has extensively study reproduction and psychology, I fear what hormone swings can cause. I have personally experienced depression from birth control, extreme PMS plus hemorrhaging from monthly cycles, and postpartum psychosis. I’ve known many women with similar experiences and even worse the first 5 years of menopause with rage becoming uncomfortable.
You've never been around male soldiers. They can be out of control and it's due to their hormones also.
So, my problem with women on the front line is that a man will be more likely to stupidly risk his life to save a woman than he would a man. I think it is not only culturally instilled in us, but spiritually, and innately part of our being. Just like I could sleep through a train, but will be wide awake if I hear my child crying.... It is in my nature I think.
Women make great nurses n wakes in combat mash units but dont put them on front lines its idiotic 😮
There are units for support, medical, administrative, technical, ... where some things like physical strength are not so important.
Combat is a man’s job.
REAL MEN
2:27
God have mercy 🙏 pls Lord
Women have been in combat for decades buddy , get a grip , they also have been around combat and in the area since the civil war . There aren’t enough men anymore who will sign up to fight , so yes women should be allowed to fight for their country . Look around not every man is fit to fight either .. people can be taught and trained .
@@Kroh13 yeah, usually raped and murdered, or enslaved. there may be exceptions in history, like the russian girl who fought in WW1, but most women do not want to be shot at. although I do respect women who do.
Instead of lowering standards for military, increase standards of your adults, America!
Having been close to some combat military special forces types - men - they had tremendous compassion for females on the front line and felt distracted to protect them where their focus should have been on the mission ahead. women should not be bodily on the front line in combat because no thing can prepare either gender from the horrors of war. frankly it is a mental/emotional burden. everything has it's place period dot.
Should standards be reduced to be inclusive?
Never.
The standards are set, to meet the excellence required.
If that excludes and entire gender, than find another position you can attain.
Good discussion. Standards must be maintained.
In 1988, under pressure from feminists etc, the Canadian Govt directed the armed forces to conduct a trial on the employment of women in the combat arms. For the infantry (my branch) the trial could never reach its start point. To be conducted, it required the close observation of 60 female infantry soldiers (30 English and 30 French) in a unit for 3 years. They couldn't get to a start point because the female recruits could not pass infantry depot training. Only one anglophone made it through and I served in the same bn as her. Since the trial could not start, the geniuses at Human Rights declared it invalid and ordered the CF to open all trades to women. That was 35 years ago.
In an odd twist this order relieved a lot of pressure. The recruiting system was going nuts convincing many female applicants to choose infantry so the trial could start. Thank God the training depots stuck rigidly to their standards. Once the order to allow it happened, much of that artificial pressure was gone. Realistically we don't do naive females any favours by tricking them to go infantry! Many have done it. Many have been successful. One of our regular force infantry bns currently has a female CO.
Bottom line is equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. It takes unique, special women to succeed in the infantry. They are very rare. We give them the opportunity to attempt it with no diminishment of standards. It has to be that way. There cannot be 2 standards for infantry warfighting. There's the infantry standard... period. As a result, of all the combat arms, infantry has the fewest females in it... by far.
What effects a woman's physical, mental, and emotional stability also effects her potential children. So, it's not just a matter of what risks she's willing to take for herself at the time. Women are needed to be nurturing and stable as mothers for the sake of the new generations.
So what are men? Disposable m
Not all women can have kids?
Even if a combat service woman accepts and understands the horrific consequences of falling into some of our barbaric enemies hands, they are not able to mitigate the emotional impact on that woman’s fellow male soldiers. Being normal men who have developed some relationship with the women in the unit, will feel a greater obligation upon themselves to defend or offset what may happen to the woman. It’s genetics.